Hopefully the examination and categorization of small tubes amps will bridge the gap between everything we’ve talked about with respect to identifying drug-like sound characteristics and actually building systems that produce drug-like sounds.

As a little refresher [I think as much for me as you all]:

We are classifying things into 4 different kinds of systems:

Boy Toy systems: make loud noises
Gee Whiz systems: use really cool technology
Practical systems: are easy to listen to music on
Drug-like systems: evoke intense musical experiences

Drug-like sounds require three things:

1) A significant complexity [which perhaps triggers latent similar patterns of associations in the brain] which can be in the dynamic, harmonic, timing [we have experienced amazing effects with delays, and there is of course PRaT, as well as melodic interplay between threads of a melody], and detail domain: micro-dynamics, micro-harmonics [or very rich and/or pure harmonics], extremely fine timing, micro-details… Anything which adds [likely fractal-like] complexity

2) Something for our practical mind to focus on so it can ignore all the things that are wrong with the sound

3) No significant bad behavior

I want to say [to make our model as simple as possible] that 2) is largely personal preference and 3) is an absolute [for our purposes here]. So, for example, people who absolutely MUST have realistic dynamics [or deep soundstages, or whatever] in their system [which is fine], will never achieve a drug-like sound if they build a system that has insufficient harmonic integrity [we are not talking lean, we are talking Sahara desert].

Most people [if they are lucky!] build systems around 2) [personal preferences – what their practical mind demands] and then continually adjust cables and components to address the resultant 3) bad behavior caused by the way they built their system [unlucky people never even get to 2)]

[We see a lot of, dare I say it, weird 2) personal preferences [absolute MUST HAVE requirements] for just ONE of the following, strangely ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE about the sound: Soundstage width, soundstage depth, punch, room pressurization, air, bass detail, soundstage behind the speakers, soundstage in front of the speakers, absolutely no room interaction, etc. And every single person thinks that their personal preference is so obviously the most important thing about the sound and that everybody is trying to dupe them into thinking it is not :-). It was this observation that inspired much of the agnostic approach in the, for example, speakers guides in the Audiophile’s Guide to the Galaxy].

One approach to system building, which we do for a lot of people who are either like us [we pretty much want everything across the board to be equally great up to the point of unaffordability] or who do not know what their personal preferences are, is to build a system that satisfies what a REASONABLE person’s preferences should be for 2), with no bad behavior 3) up front, and then tune a single piece of equipment to be awesomely rich and transparent and provide the complexity [or is at least complexity capable] for drug-like sounds.

OK, getting to the small tube amps…

In order to build affordable drug-like systems the idea is to examine the range of small tube amps and the speakers they will drive [perhaps including some of the better solid-state amps as options for some speakers] and pick one. This will take care of most of the requirements of most people for 2) with minimal bad behavior 3). Then we will figure out how to add that extra special something [or preserve what is already there if the amp or speaker is the thing with the ‘special sauce’] to get the system from being Practical to being Drug-like.

… to be continued…

[Sorry about the peek-a-boo with the last post. We should be able to repost it any day now – certainly before CES :-)]

Here is our silly picture of a note once again, in all its pure pristineness

This is persistent background noise, like tape hiss.

This is background noise that gets louder as each note gets louder.

The is background noise that is about 3dB, say, below the average volume of the notes, along with a little delay. Notice how this eats into the micro-dynamics. The delay could be caused by everything from slow discharging electronics to room echos.

This is yet another kind of noise that just kind of throws a lot of garbage into each part of the note, making it sound less distinct and pure than it should.

This is another kind of noise that appear on steep leading edges of notes.

We’ve all certainly heard all these types of noise, and more.

One thing we can say for certain about all these types of noise is that they are annoying [that’s why we call it NOISE :-)] and distracts from any drug-like effect we are trying to achieve.

We talk about the importance of micro-dynamics to achieve any drug-like effect – but as we can see [kind of] the absence of many types of noise is often required before we can even begin to HEAR micro-dynamics [assuming we have any to hear].

In other words, in order for any micro-dynamics to even show up against the background sound, we need the music to be fairly well-behaved: not too much noise, not bright and edgy, not rolled off, not drowned out by bass, delays not too long that they interfere with the micro-dynamics of the other notes, delays not too short that they distract our ears – acting like faux micro-dynamics in themselves., etc.

This kind of rules out a lot of systems from being drug-like contenders.

But it also rules in quite a few components.

As a wild-eyed [or sleepy-eyed] guess, I’d say:

40-60%? of speakers should be flat enough in the midrange and not extremely terrible in the outer freq to qualify as well-behaved

40%? or so of small tube amps as well

5%? of large tube amps

10%? of solid-state amps

20%? of preamps

20%? of CD players

90%? of turntables

20%? of cables

The rest are too bright or blurred, frequency shifting, compressive, too much NOISE, or whatever…

[Note that it is important, as always, to match amp to speaker. Incorrectly matched amp/speaker pairs will have a much smaller chance of achieving a drug-like sound. I would say ZERO chance except in the (not uncommon) case where a small tube amp – say a 2A3-tube based amp – is paired with a good but not terribly efficient speaker in order to get the drug-like effect in a very narrow freq range – the rest of the freq being out to a very long lunch.].

Relativism is the name given to the idea that whether a thing is good or bad is entirely dependent on a person’s point of view.

That there is no Absolute better and worse, no Absolute good and evil.

Relativism is most often used by people who are trying to push their particular point of view in order that they can make more money and gain more power. [it is my opinion that good people resort to relativism only because they are insufficiently schooled at rhetoric and are unable to argue the case convincingly – no matter if their case is Absolutely right].

Relativistic reviewers feel justified recommending every single piece of equipment as the ‘best’ saying that it will be the best for ‘somebody’ out there, so why not. The fact that they think it stinks means nothing, its just their personal preference.

OK. Some examples:

JV: arc-ref-610-vs-vtl-siegfried-800

And I quote:

“I’m not quite sure what is irrelevant about pointing out that even back in the day there was no single best, which is the point i was making about the VTL and the ARC amps. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that i got the VTL Siegfrieds and compared them to the ARC 610Ts. You already know how I feel about the 610Ts–I prefer their neutrality, their luminousness, their bloom, their naturalness to any other tube amp I’ve heard in my home or at shows. For the sake of argument, let’s say that I continued to prefer the ARC 610Ts’ presentation to that of the VTL Siegfrieds, at least on Magico and MartinLogan loudspeakers, my question is: So fucking what? Who appointed me King of the Audiophiles? Who appointed Pearson King? or Cordesman? “

Besides the fact that luminousness and bloom is just not the ARC’s forte, ARCs are better amps than VTL for everything but the ultimate “I don’t care about anything else but raw nuclear-strike level macro-dynamics” Boy Toy systems.

Based on JVs comments in that thread, and the rooms he likes at RMAF 2010, I would say that he prefers a cross between Boy Toy and Practical systems [i.e. big loud systems that you can kind of casually listen to music on].

From the relativistic point of view, JV is off in his own personal universe and his preferences mean nothing to anybody else but him.

From the absolutist point of view, he currently prefers a particular type of categorizable system and his preferences are completely valid for all other people looking for that kind of system, as well as to those off us who can write off his preferences because we are NOT interested in that type of system. In fact, the more he talks about his preferences and what he likes, the MORE useful it is for absolutists.

Another example:

Jacob Heilbrunn: vtl-siegfried-power-amplifier-75-series-ii-preamplifier

A couple of quotes:

“It was wide open, passing a tremendous amount of information—the most that I have heard from any preamplifier, excepting the Messenger, which passes a pinch more. Once again the VTL trademarks were there: an extremely dynamic, transparent, and fast sound. No part of the frequency spectrum was unduly emphasized, but the presentation was far from the traditional tube one. Lovers of a more romantic sound will find the 7.5 to be too stark and neutral. I didn’t. The verve and zest, the dynamic power and scale with which it reproduced music made it hard to fault”

I am not familiar with Jacob’s writing. Some of this is reviewer CYA speak, some of it is [sometimes I think deliberate] inexperience.

“the most I have heard from any preamplifier” – this is Absolutist-speak but using relativism to cover his ass. Does the casual reader know just what preamps Jacob HAS heard? [No. They interpret this as an absolute comparison with the ENTIRE WORLD of preamps – this is a reviewer for gawd sakes, they know and have heard everything! – this pre has the mostest].

Jeez, a treasure trove of reviewer-speak here:

“Lovers of a more romantic sound will find the 7.5 to be too stark and neutral. I didn’t.”

The first sentence is vacuously true for any amp: Lovers of a more romantic sound than what amp X is able to provide will find amp X too stark and neutral. The ‘hint’ is that the VTL is stark and neutral. The “I didn’t” is to move the statement from any absolutest conclusion into the relativist’s personal preference domain. He, the all-knowing all-powerful reviewer writing the review did not find the amps too start and neutral, which tends to call out lovers of more romantic sounds as having personal preferences that are somewhat ‘abnormal’.[this is reiterated and confirmed later on in this review where he also later devolves into referencing the trumped up small tube / large tube/ solid state wars].

Not picking on Jacob in particular; this is how 99% of reviewers absolve themselves of any responsibility for describing what things really sound like and moving all observations firmly from any tint of absolutism over into the subjective relativism domain.

In fact, the VTL is NOT overly stark and neutral. Their sound has a dark veil over the harmonics [maybe that is what stark means?], little or no micro-dynamic capability, has difficulties with note decay and other things that are off-putting to lovers of these other, critical, parts of the music. It is not their use of any particular technology, which so many relativists would have you believe, that is off-putting to people who do not favor these amps over some others.

“There are few other tubed amplifier in production that can challenge its dynamic sweep.”

Now, this statement in the concluding paragraph goes the other direction. Making an absolutist statement, but coaching it in so many qualifiers that it is near useless.

I think one can safely say that “This amp is currently lord of macro-dynamics.” [referring only to home audio amps and not the monsters at, say, the Stone’s concerts!]. Just tell people what it sounds like. This way, if someone really wants macro-dynamics above all else, they can get these amps and be very, very happy. Dealers are happy, the reviewer is happy, VTL is happy. But with these reviews obfuscating the situation with his personal preferences this, and your personal preferences that and referencing tube vrs solid-state wars and etc. the review is just confusing to most people who are trying to figure out what amp to buy.

The point here is then that personal preferences can be categorized into just a few absolute kinds of system sound [a simplification, yes but a very useful simplification, like many, many other models of reality we use everyday], and equipment can be described using language that refers to its absolute good better best for each [limited set of] attributes of sound, and with respect to the kinds of system(s) that the equipment is targeted at.